F1technical.net

Brian,

To answer your question - yes it's used in other racing series. The manufacturers concerned just don't have hyperactive PR departments and an inferiority complex

If you have two layers of rubber there are good reasons for the bottom layer to be either lower or higher dynamic stiffness than the top layer depending on what you're trying to achieve.

Ben

hardingfv32 wrote:

Mikey_s wrote:As Philip mentioned, very common on bike tyres;
http://www.bridgestonebikersclub.co.uk/tyre/BT-16.php
I have them on mine...

This is COMPLETELY different....... I am talking about the rubber underneath the top tread, NOT next to the top thread.

Brian

I'm well aware of that Brian, this was partly to answer your point concerning de-bonding, which certainly doesn;t happen in multi-compound tyres.

On a separate point... Am I the only one who hates the tyre rules?

When teams spend extraordinary sums of money chasing 1/10's or 1/100's of a second, what is the point of providing a tyre that is 1 - 1.5s slower and forcing the teams to use them? Similarly, what is the point of having a tyre that may last the race distance, but renders the car hopelessly slow when the sticky bit runs out and therefore defeats the point of leaving the tyre on?

In China Kimi went from a podium to being out of the points, not because his car wasn't capable of chasing the car in front, but because the tyre was worn out...

I like to see overtaking, but not in such an 'engineered' way. Schumacher is reported in the press today as saying thedrivers can't race becuase the tyres aren't up to it (like driving on raw eggs - although I never trued that!).

The current tyres (and rules), to my mind, are depriving the fans of seeing who has developed the best vehicle... if we want to artificially improve the show perhaps Charlie can randomly switch off the ECU of certain cars...
just my opinion...

Mikey_s wrote:
When teams spend extraordinary sums of money chasing 1/10's or 1/100's of a second, what is the point of providing a tyre that is 1 - 1.5s slower and forcing the teams to use them?

Isn't it worth asking what it's all for. The massive sums spent on aero development in F1 over the last few decades have contributed noting to road car aerodyanmics.

If the racing is boring as a result - what's the point? Motorsport has nothing to really contribute to the development of the next generation of road cars. It needs to be viewed as part of the entertainment industry.

Ben

Agreed \ben,
on the other hand what I |(and presumably most of the people on F1 Technical) like is the technology... the clever tricks they use to make cars as fast as the laws of physics will permit... so why stuff it up by putting useless rubber down...

For the record I loved the tyre battles between Bridgestone and Michelin.

I agree that this is an entertainment industry, but it's also a technology driven (no pun intended) sport. IMO Pirelli should be developing tyres that either allow the cars to exhibit their full potential (and maybe then give up), or last for a significant time with lesser performance. What we currently have is the worst of both worlds, tyres that don't allow the racers to race at their full potential, and they don;t last either..

Rant over